Three days in a row. Different GLA than advertised.

[J Grant]

IMO, rarely is there only one absolute value for a property using cold data alone and without taking into consideration what the appraiser saw inside the property, and without closely reading the MLS info and reviewing all MLS photos of the comps. Typically, its a value RANGE which then can be analyzed by taking those non-public factors into consideration. Lack of seeing and evaluating those comp conditions is a shortcoming with the AVMs and waiver situations, but as long as the perceived equity position is large enough, they will likely be fine most of the time.

The analysis, the thinking part, takes as long as it takes to come to a supportable value, which is why I'm always particularly peeved when AMC twiddledums want to know what TIME the report will be uploaded. When I'm satisfied with the analysis and conclusion; that's when.

Indeed, we end up with a value range, and from there, we reconcile our point value.
We should have a supportable reason for reconcling our point value at X $ amount - the reason makes sense in the appraisal and everything leads up to it. Our point value is supported credibly in the appraisal, but of course does not become a universal benchmark - that is why it is limited to a client and a set of users, a defined purpose and so on.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Indeed, we end up with a value range, and from there, we reconcile our point value.
We should have a supportable reason for reconcling our point value at X $ amount - the reason makes sense in the appraisal and everything leads up to it. Our point value is supported credibly in the appraisal, but of course does not become a universal benchmark - that is why it is limited to a client and a set of users, a defined purpose and so on.

Reminds me to ask: Just finished a 1004 for client who is conservator of father's estate who the Court required to obtain an As Is appraisal to determine Opinion of [Fair] Market Value that will be the lowest possible offer that can be considered. I was wondering whether the Intended Use should describe that factor, or just describe the Intended Use as Value that the court ordered.

[Due Diligence also lead me down the path of the "Probate Referee" which is a CA court-appointed term for an appraiser who provides all court-ordered appraisals, charging a fee based on the opinion of value--although the concept isn't much discussed anywhere of which I am aware...

 

[Fernando]

It's always struck me as interesting that the use of public records for GLA for the subject is considered insufficient for appraisal purposes, but the use of public records for GLA for the comparables (the ones we're using to establish value) is perfectly fine. Seems inconsistent to me.

I'm glad you agree with Nando. Consistency. If appraiser is going to compare subject to comps' GLA from public records, than subject's GLA should also be near public records.
Our main purpose is to verify if subject is not significantly altered in GLA.

 

[alebrewer]

IMO, rarely is there only one absolute value for a property using cold data alone and without taking into consideration what the appraiser saw inside the property, and without closely reading the MLS info and reviewing all MLS photos of the comps. Typically, its a value RANGE which then can be analyzed by taking those non-public factors into consideration. Lack of seeing and evaluating those comp conditions is a shortcoming with the AVMs and waiver situations, but as long as the perceived equity position is large enough, they will likely be fine most of the time

Love this. I'd go a bit further and say that there is never one point value for a property - simply because every market participant's preferences are different. So that, after having developed a well supported range of value, any point within that range would be just as statistically significant as any other point. The benefit AVM's have over traditional appraisals is that they're users are ok with confidence intervals - something appraisers would be VERY well suited to do - if allowed to and if they understand how to.

 

[alebrewer]

I'm glad you agree with Nando. Consistency.

Just don't tell anyone my friend. You know - reputations and all that.

 

[Jayjay25]

The assessment data I see around here definitely varies from town to town. I find that the towns that have the assessors and assistant assessors inspect and measure properties results in more accurate data. The towns who pay large revaluation companies, that have inexperienced, low paid workers completing the reassessment inspections, have more errors and inaccurate data.

 

[J Grant]

Love this. I'd go a bit further and say that there is never one point value for a property - simply because every market participant's preferences are different. So that, after having developed a well supported range of value, any point within that range would be just as statistically significant as any other point. The benefit AVM's have over traditional appraisals is that they're users are ok with confidence intervals - something appraisers would be VERY well suited to do - if allowed to and if they understand how to.

There is never one point value ( that is universally accepted or whatever a standard is)

However, the appraisal is expected to provide a point value that meets certain criteria within the appraisal. And the reason we provide a point value is because a client needs for an LTV of a loan or some other use. Nobody outside the appraisal identified users and client needs to accept or use the appraisal point value - therefore, I fail to see why you keep arguing against it.

The AVM can also provide a point value, but why it is more beneficial because it has a confidence score around the number is puzzling.

If a client wants to impose a confidence score around an appraisal market value opinion ( the point value ) they are free to do so. In fact, they alread do and express it in a ROV or other challenge or question about a value opinion..

If clients could freely lend a few percentage points up or down from the point value $ number it would solve a lot of problems - I believe they are allowed , but rarely do it for varous reasons.

 

[alebrewer]

The AVM can also provide a point value, but why it is more beneficial because it has a confidence score around the number is puzzling.

I'm not surprised, J.

 

[Zoe]

Monday: Home listed as 2510 sf GLA, only 2335 sf GLA. Not a terrible difference, but already a top of market sale and that 175 sf matters. In Tidewater now.

Tuesday: Home listed as 4335 sf GLA, only 3604 sf GLA. Luckily, it was on 20 acres and was not too big a factor.

Wednesday: Home listed 3022 sf GLA, only 2605 sf GLA.

Notice, they are all the wrong way in valuation importance.

All based on public records. Yet, waivers would never notice. Some think the appraiser inspection is not important, but when the PDR comes up with less GLA, do they make the appraiser measure it also?

They are bad here sometimes. You just got the luck of the draw. I can have plans on new construction and them be off sometimes. Square footage differences can be major in the final analysis. I don't know why we don't have GSE data. I can't explain that Sir.

Some brain cell tells me we were supposed to get paid for data to GSEs. I can't recall. LOL

There was a term like "intellectual property data" at one time.

 

[Zoe]

I think I understand the loss of "intellectual property data".

It is now "what yours is mine and what is mine is mine".

@DWiley may correct me, but I think some brain cell tells me I am right.

Houston we have a problem. Delete that brain cell of Zoe.